What if a suppressor is used in a defensive shooting?

[DwayneZ]

How would they know it was mounted for the shoot?

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

When they ask where the supe is, because it's a legal registered item, and then they look at the soot inside the can, they'll know rather fast it was on the barrel at time of shooting. Forensics has really come a long way.

How using a legal setup makes any diff, not sure, but look what they tried to do with Rittenhouse. My guess is, if it was all legal w/o snags, defense would get judge to agree that any call-out to identify the rifle as anything other than a "all-legal rifle" would be banned.

[wahoo95]

When they ask where the supe is, because it's a legal registered item, and then they look at the soot inside the can, they'll know rather fast it was on the barrel at time of shooting. Forensics has really come a long way.

How using a legal setup makes any diff, not sure, but look what they tried to do with Rittenhouse. My guess is, if it was all legal w/o snags, defense would get judge to agree that any call-out to identify the rifle as anything other than a "all-legal rifle" would be banned.

Last I checked soot doesn't have time lapse indicators?

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[1168]

Last I checked soot doesn't have time lapse indicators?

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

I don’t know if its relevant to this scenario, but I’ve noticed that copper fouling does.

[joedirt199]

You guys watching too much CSI. They are looking for gun shot residue on your hands not how long did it take the copper microns to corrode in your supressor you have locked in your safe.

[kerplode]

This is all pretty straightforward...

If you use a suppressor in a self defense shooting, the cops will take it along with the weapon that it is attached to.
If you attempt to tamper with evidence by removing the suppressor or other shenanigans and the investigators find out about it, your likely good shoot is now entirely in question and you will most likely end up in prison.

Look, in most places, the DA is going to try to **** you into the ground regardless of how pristine the circumstances surrounding the shooting were. Why make their job easier by tampering with shit after the fact? Just lay it on the floor next to the corpse, call your lawyer, and keep your damn mouth shut when the cops roll up. If you're that worried about losing the suppressor that you'd risk catching a murder charge over it, then maybe just leave it in the safe. Making good choices really isn't that hard...

[1168]

Yeah, its not gonna be hard for an investigator to piece this together if they’re reasonably educated on the topic. When they look at the rifle they’ll know that you have a can. Powder burns and gun shot residue patterns might also have something to say, and there may be a bit of blood spatter on the front cap. Might even still be warm when they find it. I don’t think deception is a good plan. The risk vs reward doesn’t make it a good gamble.

[DwayneZ]

You guys watching too much CSI. They are looking for gun shot residue on your hands not how long did it take the copper microns to corrode in your supressor you have locked in your safe.

Not really Joe.

I just read a forensics doc about documenting gunshot residue of a crime scene. Although it did not cover supes it did discuss finding very small bits of "ball" metal that will land in a room (walls, floor, ceiling, furniture, etc). These small bits of metal are vaporized metals that come out of a round of ammo, the metal then cools into tiny small spheres and then lands. The technique to pick up the metal is as easy as lifting with tape.

A round of ammo lets off lots of good trace data for the forensics folks, which can be things like patterns, direction, powder and primer types, and even if a muzzle device was attached or not.

All that said, supe in a home room vs supe out on the streets, obviously presents different challenges for sure. Yeah, perhaps some Quantico stuff, but the forensics capabilities are there today, not CSI stuff.

[georgeib]

This is all pretty straightforward...

If you use a suppressor in a self defense shooting, the cops will take it along with the weapon that it is attached to.
If you attempt to tamper with evidence by removing the suppressor or other shenanigans and the investigators find out about it, your likely good shoot is now entirely in question and you will most likely end up in prison.

Look, in most places, the DA is going to try to **** you into the ground regardless of how pristine the circumstances surrounding the shooting were. Why make their job easier by tampering with shit after the fact? Just lay it on the floor next to the corpse, call your lawyer, and keep your damn mouth shut when the cops roll up. If you're that worried about losing the suppressor that you'd risk catching a murder charge over it, then maybe just leave it in the safe. Making good choices really isn't that hard...

Yeah, its not gonna be hard for an investigator to piece this together if they’re reasonably educated on the topic. When they look at the rifle they’ll know that you have a can. Powder burns and gun shot residue patterns might also have something to say, and there may be a bit of blood spatter on the front cap. Might even still be warm when they find it. I don’t think deception is a good plan. The risk vs reward doesn’t make it a good gamble.

I see you guys are using your noggins. Tampering with evidence risk vs reward is a no-brainer... or should be, at least.

My original question was posed, not with the idea of removing the suppressor post facto, rather to understand if the PD was allowed to take possession of NFA items after a defensive shooting. In retrospect, the answer seems pretty self-evident. Wasn't thinking clearly when I asked.

[DwayneZ]

I see you guys are using your noggins. Tampering with evidence risk vs reward is a no-brainer... or should be, at least.

My original question was posed, not with the idea of removing the suppressor post facto, rather to understand if the PD was allowed to take possession of NFA items after a defensive shooting. In retrospect, the answer seems pretty self-evident. Wasn't thinking clearly when I asked.

That last part, you mean you were not thinking clearly when you asked in your earlier post?


Simply give weapon as-is if LE wants it, but NEVER talk, just don't do it. Your right to remain silent. Maybe just say the obvious, "perp broke in and I shot the perp". Beyond the obvious NEVER talk to LE.

The reason why you NEVER talk, is exactly what you said, "not thinking clearly". After a serious incident most people are not thinking clearly, so all you need to remember is, NEVER talk to LE.

[georgeib]

That last part, you mean you were not thinking clearly when you asked in your earlier post?


Simply give weapon as-is if LE wants it, but NEVER talk, just don't do it. Your right to remain silent. Maybe just say the obvious, "perp broke in and I shot the perp". Beyond the obvious NEVER talk to LE.

The reason why you NEVER talk, is exactly what you said, "not thinking clearly". After a serious incident most people are not thinking clearly, so all you need to remember is, NEVER talk to LE.

I was referring to the original post. I was the one that started this thread with the idea of answering a question with a pretty obvious (now) answer. I meant I wasn't thinking clearly when I started the thread regarding LE's ability to take into evidence NFA items after a defensive shooting.

As to not speaking to the police, I would tend to agree almost unreservedly. A micro statement (similar to the one in your example) after being the victim of a crime, necessitating the use of deadly force in self-defense, goes a long way towards establishing innocence in the minds of first responders. And will determine the perspective from which the initial police reports will be written.

The advice to "NEVER, under ANY circumstances, talk to police!" is generalized to the general population, and is a fantastic rule of thumb. However, one must know when (and what) it is in one's own best interest to release information to LE. A very brief statement along the lines of, "The guy broke though the garage door and attacked me. I thought he was going to kill me, so I defended myself. I don't feel very well, officer, could you call me an ambulance, please?" will go a MUCH LONGER way towards establishing who was the victim and who was the perp versus a statement of, "I won't answer any questions without the presence of my attorney."

You can bet the police report is going to look pretty different between those 2 statements.